Patents

Leading innovators turn to our patent litigators for their most challenging cases.

We have a formidable record in competitor versus competitor cases. And we’ve prevailed against the most aggressive patent assertion entities.

We have a winning record in the toughest arenas, from the Eastern District of Texas and the Northern District of California to the International Trade Commission (ITC). And we’ve handled more than 60 inter partes review proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Our results prompted The American Lawyer to name us "IP Litigation Department of the Year" in 2016. "Time and again, we heard stories…lauding Orrick’s ability to jump into a case and successfully dig its clients out of a hole, even with little time to prepare," The American Lawyer reported. "What’s more, the firm successfully demonstrated this across an impressive range of venues, using novel strategies."

Equally important to us and our clients, we draw on our litigation experience to help companies avoid the courtroom in the first place through effective IP counseling and licensing.

When the Stakes Are Highest

When Ruckus Wireless faced what The American Lawyer called a "must win" patent case brought by rival Netgear, it called in one of our teams six weeks before trial. We quickly devised a trial strategy and pulled off a resounding defense verdict. Ruckus’ general counsel told The American Lawyer that we "built a great team, worked long hours and worked in an environment that is sometimes challenging for law firms because of the amount of collaboration we require."

We scored a similar result for MobileIron, a pioneer in mobile device security, in a high-stakes patent case brought by a competitor. Representing Nintendo, we fended off an ITC case brought by one of the winningest plaintiff’s lawyers, who sought to bar Nintendo from selling its marquee product, the Wii gaming console. When a much larger rival threatened Tekmira Pharmaceuticals’ pioneering cancer treatment research, we fended off a multicountry dispute, obtaining a $75 million settlement that allowed the company to continue with its lifesaving work.

Time and again, we have helped our clients avoid massive damages, crippling injunctions and reputational harm. Our patent trial and appellate lawyers work closely with our clients’ in-house team to pursue the best achievable result with the minimum business disruption. We draw on our backgrounds in science and engineering to delve into the technologies in dispute. In fact, in reporting about our innovative approach to defending a group of Taiwanese chipmakers before the ITC, Financial Times described how our team "dug deeper into the technical details than previous defendants to successfully challenge the claimant’s expert."

And we combine that technical understanding with finely tuned courtroom skills to tell our clients’ stories in a clear and persuasive way. Early in each case, we work with our in-house counterparts to seek out themes that clarify the key legal, business and scientific issues. We refine those themes during discovery as we develop the detailed case highly tailored for each target audience.

Strength in Asia

Our Patent Litigation team has deep roots in Asia. Our China team, led by dual U.S./Chinese-educated practitioners based in Beijing and Shanghai, is ranked Tier 1 by Asian Legal Business. The team acts for U.S. and Chinese companies, providing both counseling and effective resolution of complex cross-border disputes.

Likewise, we have a team based in Taipei, China and the U.S. that focuses on representing Taiwanese companies in matters in the U.S. and Asia.

Our long-established Japanese IP team comprises fluent Japanese speakers based in Tokyo and the U.S. We are honored to act for the leading Japanese companies in patent litigation in both Japan and the U.S. We recently achieved a quick and decisive victory for 40 Japanese camera manufacturers and retailers in a patent case brought by a subsidiary of the patent aggregator Acacia, involving data used to produce digital images. The case produced useful rulings on the kinds of ideas that are eligible for patenting under Section 101 of the Patent Act.

Success on Appeal

Our Appellate team gives our clients another crucial edge. The team recently pulled off a reversal in the smartphone wars that made new law regarding injunctive relief for infringement of standards-essential patents. And a member of our team, Mark Davies, literally wrote the book on arguing at the Federal Circuit. Patent Appeals: The Elements of Effective Advocacy in the Federal Circuit has been called the user manual for Federal Circuit appeals.

Counseling

Our PTO-registered lawyers regularly help clients secure new patent rights, often when the technology or business practice at stake is not well understood. And we help clients determine the value of patents during acquisition due diligence, and have a proven record of successfully negotiating patent licensing and settlement agreements.

Thorne Research and Softgel Formulators v. XYMOGEN: We secured a complete win for XYMOGEN in a lengthy patent infringement suit brought in the District of Utah. The plaintiffs alleged that XYMOGEN sold certain nutritional supplements (highly absorbable Coenzyme Q10) in violation of its patent and sought damages, as well as a permanent injunction that would prohibit XYMOGEN from selling the accused products. After four years of litigation and a six-day jury trial, the jury ruled in a favor of XYMOGEN on all counts. In addition, the jury found the plaintiffs’ patent invalid both for derivation and improper inventorship.

Bayer v. Dow AgroSciences: We represented DowAgrosciences in two related district court patent litigations, each alleging infringement by a different genetic modification Dow’s next-generation seed products. We prevailed on summary judgment in the first suit based on a favorable claim construction, with the patentee’s expert conceding on cross examination that its proposed construction would be “false and misleading.” We prevailed on summary judgment in the second suit, winning on a license defense. We then recovered the largest post-Octane fees award to date, based in large part on deposition testimony taken from Bayer witnesses.

Femto-Sec Tech, Inc. and Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC vs. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. et al.: We represent Lawrence Livermore in seven related district court patent litigations, each alleging infringement by the industry’s largest LASIK and cataract laser device manufacturers of the Lab’s ultra-short pulse laser technology. We defeated an early motion to dismiss based on a claim that the patent was invalid under section 101, winning one of only a few plaintiff’s decisions brought under the Alice line of cases in 2016. We also won a motion to dismiss related to certain license claims. We settled five of the cases on confidential terms and the two remaining cases are scheduled for trial.

EMC v. Pure Storage: On behalf of EMC, we asserted patents related to various data storage technologies in the District of Delaware. Following a seven-day jury trial, we won a $14M verdict. After the verdict, Pure Storage was granted a new trial on a narrow issue related to patent validity. Before the retrial, we helped EMC successfully settle this case, as well as another pending matter.

Geodynamics Inc. v. Dyna Energetics, Anderson Perforating Services and Tong Petrotech, Inc.: We secured a complete defense verdict in the Eastern District of Texas for Anderson Perforating Services and Tong Petrotech, Inc. They, along with Dyna Energetics, were accused of infringing Geo Dynamics’ patents involving methods of perforating downhole oil and gas wells using reactive shape charges. After a four-day trial, the jury rejected the plaintiff’s claims, finding no infringement and even invalidating the patents.

Good Technology v. MobileIron: We obtained a complete defense verdict for MobileIron, which had been sued by a competitor and aggressive patent litigant Good Technology. Good had recovered over $300 million on its patents against others and had driven many companies out of business through its litigation strategy. Before trial, we had significant victories on the papers, eliminating some patents and gutting Good's damages case (which had been above $300 million). After an 11-day trial, the jury agreed that two of Good's patents were invalid and all of the asserted patents were found not infringed.

Featured Articles

Orrick ranks #5 nationwide on Law360’s inaugural Litigation Powerhouse list. The 2016 list ranks firms for their litigation wins and the new litigation matters they've been hired to work on in the past year, as well as the size of their practice.

Cookies on our website

We use cookies on our website. If you continue to use our website, you are consenting to our use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy. For information about how to change your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy.

Please read before sending e-mail.

Please do not include any confidential, secret or otherwise sensitive information concerning any potential or actual legal matter in this e-mail message. Unsolicited e-mails do not create an attorney-client relationship and confidential or secret information included in such e-mails cannot be protected from disclosure. Orrick does not have a duty or a legal obligation to keep confidential any information that you provide to us. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

By clicking "OK" below, you understand and agree that Orrick will have no duty to keep confidential any information you provide.